A system for ranking teams based only one wins and losses and strength of schedule. See BPR for an explanation.

EPA (Expected Points Added)

Expected points are the points a team can "expect" to score based on the distance to the end zone and down and distance needed for a first down, with an adjustment for the amount of time remaining in some situations. Expected points for every situation is estimated using seven years of historical data. The expected points considers both the average points the offense scores in each scenario and the average number of points the other team scores on their ensuing possession. The Expected Points Added is the change in expected points before and after a play.

EP3 (Effective Points Per Possession)

Effective Points Per Possession is based on the same logic as the EPA, except it focuses on the expected points added at the beginning and end of an offensive drive. In other words, the EP3 for a single drive is equal to the sum of the expected points added for every offensive play in a drive (EP3 does not include punts and field goal attempts). We can also think of the EP3 as points scored+expected points from a field goal+the value of field position change on the opponent's next possession.

Adjusted for Competition

We attempt to adjust some statistics to compensate for differences in strength of schedule. While the exact approach varies some from stat to stat the basic concept is the same. We use an algorithm to estimate scores for all teams on both sides of the ball (e.g., offense and defense) that best predict real results. For example, we give every team an offensive and defensive yards per carry score. Subtracting the offensive score from the defensive score for two opposing teams will estimate the yards per carry if the two teams were to play. Generally, the defensive scores average to zero while offensive scores average to the national average, e.g., yards per carry, so we call the offensive score "adjusted for competition" and roughly reflects what the team would do against average competition

Impact

see Adjusted for Competition. Impact scores are generally used to evaluate defenses. The value roughly reflects how much better or worse a team can expect to do against this opponent than against the average opponent.

Standardized completion % for
down and distance. Completion % by down and distance are weighted by
the national average of pass plays by down and distance.

Pass <=0

Percent of pass plays that are negative or no gain

Pass >=10

Percent of pass plays that gain 10 or more yards

Pass >=25

Percent of pass plays that gain 25 or more yards

10 to 0

Ratio of Pass >=10 to Pass<=0

%Sacks

Ratio of sacks to pass plays

Bad INTs

Interceptions on 1st or 2nd down
early before the last minute of the half

Includes the top 240 players by carries

YPC1stD

Yards per carry on 1st down

CPCs

Conversions (1st down/TD) per
carry in short yardage situations - the team 3 or fewer yards for a 1st
down or touchdown

%Team Run

Player's carries as a percent of team's carries

%Team RunS

Player's carries as a percent of team's carries in short
yardage situations

Run <=0

Percent of running plays that
are negative or no gain

Run >=10

Percent of running plays that
gain 10 or more yards

Run >=25

Percent of running plays that gain 25 or more yards

10 to 0

Ratio of Run >=10 to Run <=0

Includes the top 300 players by targets

Conv/T 3rd

Conversions per target on 3rd Downs

Conv/T PZ

Touchdowns per target inside the 10 yardline

%Team PZ

Percent of team's targets inside the 10 yardline

Rec <=0

Percent of targets that go for negative yards or no net gain

Rec >=10

Percent of targets that go for 10+ yards

Rec >=25

Percent of targets that go for 25+ yards

10 to 0

Ratio of Rec>=0 to Rec<=0

Includes the top 300 players by targets

xxxx

xxxx

...

Includes players with a significant number of attempts

NEPA

"Net Expected Points Added": (expected points after play - expected points before play)-(opponent's expected points after play - opponent's expected points before play). Uses the expected points for the current possession and the opponent's next possession based on down, distance and spot

NEPA/PP

Average NEPA per play

Max/Min

Single game high and low

Includes players with a significant number of attempts

NEPA

"Net Expected Points Added": (expected points after play - expected points before play)-(opponent's expected points after play - opponent's expected points before play). Uses the expected points for the current possession and the opponent's next possession based on down, distance and spot

NEPA/PP

Average NEPA per play

Max/Min

Single game high and low

Adjusted

Reports the per game EPA adjusted for the strength of schedule.

Defensive Possession Stats

Points/Poss

Offensive points per possession

EP3

Effective Points per Possession

EP3+

Effective Points per Possession impact

Plays/Poss

Plays per possession

Yards/Poss

Yards per possession

Start Spot

Average starting field position

Time of Poss

Average time of possession (in seconds)

TD/Poss

Touchdowns per possession

TO/Poss

Turnovers per possession

FGA/Poss

Attempted field goals per possession

%RZ

Red zone trips per possession

Points/RZ

Average points per red zone trip. Field Goals are included using expected points, not actual points.

TD/RZ

Touchdowns per red zone trip

FGA/RZ

Field goal attempt per red zone trip

Downs/RZ

Turnover on downs per red zone trip

Defensive Play-by-Play Stats

EPA/Pass

Expected Points Added per pass attempt

EPA/Rush

Expected Points Added per rush attempt

EPA/Pass+

Expected Points Added per pass attempt impact

EPA/Rush+

Expected Points Added per rush attempt impact

Yards/Pass

Yards per pass

Yards/Rush

Yards per rush

Yards/Pass+

Yards per pass impact

Yards/Rush+

Yards per rush impact

Exp/Pass

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass

Exp/Rush

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush

Exp/Pass+

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass impact

Exp/Rush+

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush impact

Comp%

Completion percentage

Comp%+

Completion percentage impact

Yards/Comp

Yards per completion

Sack/Pass

Sacks per pass

Sack/Pass+

Sacks per pass impact

Sack/Pass*

Sacks per pass on passing downs

INT/Pass

Interceptions per pass

Neg/Rush

Negative plays (<=0) per rush

Neg/Run+

Negative plays (<=0) per rush impact

Run Short

% Runs in short yardage situations

Convert%

3rd/4th down conversions

Conv%*

3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance

Conv%+

3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance impact

Offensive Play-by-Play Stats

Plays

Number of offensive plays

%Pass

Percent pass plays

EPA/Pass

Expected Points Added per pass attempt

EPA/Rush

Expected Points Added per rush attempt

EPA/Pass+

Expected Points Added per pass attempt adjusted for competition

EPA/Rush+

Expected Points Added per rush attempt adjusted for competition

Yards/Pass

Yards per pass

Yards/Rush

Yards per rush

Yards/Pass+

Yards per pass adjusted for competition

Yards/Rush+

Yards per rush adjusted for competition

Exp Pass

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass

Exp Run

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush

Exp Pass+

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per pass adjusted for competition

Exp Run+

Explosive plays (25+ yards) per rush adjusted for competition

Comp%

Completion percentage

Comp%+

Completion percentage adjusted for competition

Sack/Pass

Sacks per pass

Sack/Pass+

Sacks per pass adjusted for competition

Sack/Pass*

Sacks per pass on passing downs

Int/Pass

Interceptions per pass

Neg/Run

Negative plays (<=0) per rush

Neg/Run+

Negative plays (<=0) per rush adjusted for competition

Run Short

% Runs in short yardage situations

Convert%

3rd/4th down conversions

Conv%*

3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance

Conv%+

3rd/4th down conversions versus average by distance adjusted for competition

Offensive Possession Stats

Points/Poss

Offensive points per possession

EP3

Effective Points per Possession

EP3+

Effective Points per Possession adjusted for competition

Plays/Poss

Plays per possession

Yards/Poss

Yards per possession

Start Spot

Average starting field position

Time of Poss

Average time of possession (in seconds)

TD/Poss

Touchdowns per possession

TO/Poss

Turnovers per possession

FGA/Poss

Attempted field goals per possession

Poss/Game

Possessions per game

%RZ

Red zone trips per possession

Points/RZ

Average points per red zone trip. Field Goals are included using expected points, not actual points.

TD/RZ

Touchdowns per red zone trip

FGA/RZ

Field goal attempt per red zone trip

Downs/RZ

Turnover on downs per red zone trip

PPP

Points per Possession

aPPP

Points per Possession allowed

PPE

Points per Exchange (PPP-aPPP)

EP3+

Expected Points per Possession

aEP3+

Expected Points per Possession allowed

EP2E+

Expected Points per Exchange

EPA/Pass+

Expected Points Added per Pass

EPA/Rush+

Expected Points Added per Rush

aEPA/Pass+

Expected Points Allowed per Pass

aEPA/Rush+

Expected Points Allowed per Rush

Exp/Pass

Explosive Plays per Pass

Exp/Rush

Explosive Plays per Rush

aExp/Pass

Explosive Plays per Pass allowed

aExp/Rush

Explosive Plays per Rush allowed

BPR

A method for ranking conferences based only on their wins and losses and the strength of schedule. See BPR for an explanation.

Power

A composite measure that is the best predictor of future game outcomes, averaged across all teams in the conference

P-Top

The power ranking of the top teams in the conference

P-Mid

The power ranking of the middling teams in the conference

P-Bot

The power ranking of the worst teams in the conference

SOS-Und

Strength of Schedule - Undefeated. Focuses on the difficulty of going undefeated, averaged across teams in the conference

SOS-BE

Strength of Schedule - Bowl Eligible. Focuses on the difficulty of becoming bowl eligible, averaged across teams in the conference

Hybrid

A composite measure that quantifies human polls, applied to converences

Player Game LogUse the yellow, red and green cells to filter values. Yellow cells filter for exact matches, green cells for greater values and red cells for lesser values. By default, the table is filtered to only the top 200 defense-independent performances (oEPA). The table includes the 5,000 most important performances (positive and negative) by EPA.

EPA

Expected points added (see glossary)

oEPA

Defense-independent performance

Team Game LogUse the yellow, red and green cells to filter values. Yellow cells filter for exact matches, green cells for greater values and red cells for lesser values.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

How the Irish Lost their Fight

When I hear “Irish”, I think of potato famines, soccer hooligans, leprechauns, lots of green, lots of alcohol, and the NRA. When I hear “Fighting Irish”, I envision the Golden Dome, Touchdown Jesus, Ara, Lou, Frank, and, of course, Knute, tradition, history, championships, four horsemen (of the non-apocalyptic variety) and everyone’s favorite diminutive college football player not named Flutie.

Last year, Coach Weis and his charges left the Fight at home.

“Three-and-nine doesn't even sound right, especially in the same sentence as Notre Dame” -Senior fullback Asaph Schwapp in Athlon Sports

That’s because the Domers haven’t been that inept since 1963. Ara Parseghian arrived in 1964. Over the next quarter century, the Fighting Irish won 4 AP national championships, a couple Heismans, and a lot of football games.

Ara Parseghian, Dan Devine and Lou Holtz did as much in that run to revolutionize football as Knute Rockne himself several decades earlier. In 1966, Notre Dame and Michigan State gave college administrators, coaches, broadcasters and journalists a taste of the potential draw for college football, and thus reinvented the way the game is marketed.

Less dramatically, in 1993 a story about a steel mill worker who gets in one play for Notre Dame inspired one of the better sports movies of all time that was alternatively titled, “Notre Dame is Cooler than Your Stupid School.” It grossed over $20 million at the box office and people will forever think “Rudy” when an athlete is carried from the field.

College football is better off because of Notre Dame, its tradition, accomplishments, and fans. College football will be better off in the future if the Irish get their Fight back.

But in 2007, the neighbor boy’s pee-wee football team would have looked like the ’85 Bears against the Fight-less Irish. More important, Notre Dame football, like the variety played in Nebraska, seems to be drifting into a state of permanent mediocrity since the resignations of the most recent members of their respective coaching pantheons in the last half of the 90’s.

The old excuse for any gridiron failure is that Notre Damers are too smart to be good at football. This justification was invented with Deemphasis in the 50’s – that good schools sacrifice athletic accomplishments for academic acumen. “Notre Dame”, administrators cried, “is not a football factory”. To retain this image, Notre Dame has theoretically restricted its access to some athletes that are talented on the field, but not in the classroom.

Paul Hornung, a Domer legend, brought this excuse to the forefront when he controversially proposed in 2004 that Notre Dame lower its academic standards to attract more black athletes.

Apparently, this fine academic institution wasn’t good enough to keep Mr. Hornung from shoving a foot in his mouth.

But even if we ignore the stupidity of publicly making that kind of comment, we can see that it’s not even true. If Paul Hornung thinks it’s hard to recruit the best talent to South Bend, try recruiting 5 star athletes to Annapolis. But high standards and military commitments didn’t keep Paul Johnson and the Midshipmen of Navy from beating our dear Irish in 2007.

Boston College is the nation’s other Catholic university with tough admission standards, but while Notre Dame sent out the nation’s least productive offense, BC spent a good portion of the season in the top 5, played for the conference championship, and graduated a Heisman candidate.

And when it comes to recruiting African-American athletes, Notre Dame has an inside track paved with gold compared to Brigham Young University, a program that has won as many national championships, produced as many Heismans, and won more games than Notre Dame since the end of the 1970’s.

If Charlie Weis, a fatter gentleman competing in a world dominated by young, flamboyant coaching personalities, can pull in one of the nation’s best recruiting classes after a 3-9 season, recruiting athletes to South Bend is not the problem.

If recruiting isn’t the issue, the next potential target of our inquisition must be the coaching.

If you would have asked a solid Notre Dame football fan about the future of Notre Dame football in early 2003, it would have been all roses. Ty Willingham had pulled out a 10 win season and a top-5 recruiting class. And the guy was as snappy dresser, the snappiest in Notre Dame coaching history. If you ignored the SC beat down, all was well in South Bend.

The situation was very similar to what Ohio State had experienced a year earlier with the arrival Tressel (assuming, of course, that you also think sweater vests are snappy). The team was scrappy and tough, winning games that they should have lost. Ty Willingham won every coaching award worth accepting, and some coaching awards were invented just to make him feel even better about himself.

Notre Dame is a school of tradition, which is a synonym for myth. Listen to a Domer talk about the four horsemen and you would think they scored a touchdown on every play. Watch “Rudy” and you’ll never realize that Notre Dame was quite mediocre in Rudy’s big year. The standards, set by almost mythical creatures, are too high to live up to, but have one successful season at Notre Dame and fans will have you convinced that Rockne-like success is your birthright. You will be labeled a “Golden Boy” until you fail and start getting the hate mail—but Notre Dame is not a football factory.

Ty Willingham bought into the hype and, consequently, his team lost that scrappy mentality. In 2003, Notre Dame lost its Fight. They opened the season with a tough win over Washington State (a good team), but then got blasted by Michigan. The wheels quickly fell off and Coach Willingham was getting death threats.

In comes the next candidate for apotheosis—Charlie Weis. The program was in disarray, but he is able to get folks to rally around him. He got the Fight back. He has two very successful seasons with Ty Willingham’s players, and praise is dumped on him faster than he can dig out from under it.

Charlie Weis, like Willingham, bought the hype. Rumor has it that Coach Weis forgot in Spring 2007 that football was a contact sport, thinking he could out-scheme opponents—he was smart enough to win games with his brain. That lack of physicality in practice led to poor performances on Saturdays. Really poor performances. “Worst offense in the country” kind of performances. And offense is supposed to be Weis’s forte. In 2007, Notre Dame lost its Fight.

This was a best case scenario for the Irish. Notre Dame, like Michigan, was engulfed in its own mythology and needed a dose of reality (which, in Michigan’s case, came in the form of Appalachian State). Charlie Weis was humbled but the situation did not become unmanageable. Some players left, but more are arriving. The coaches, players and fans have reevaluated their expectations, and, hopefully, the Irish have got their Fight back.

But let this be a warning to the college football nation (including you, Alabama). A little success creates expectations and cultures of hero worship that can be self-destructive. They lead to instability and performance-inhibiting self-aggrandizement. And impossibly-high standards of success and myths of the past are much easier to build up than to bring down.